Service Above Self. Love Beyond Borders. Truth Above Everything.

Tag Archives: Pakistan

Pakistan is a deeply religious country with over 95 percent of its population being Muslim (Rais, 2011, 22). Although the Pakistani military has ruled Pakistan for most of the years since it gained independence from India in 1947, Pakistan remains a democratic republic with elections being held at the national and provincial levels over the past few decades (Tanwir, 2002, 252). Democratic governments have been formed by the leftist party, the Pakistan People’s Party, and the right-of-center Pakistan Muslim League on different occasions (Tanwir, 2002, 252). Surprisingly, the Islamic parties in Pakistan have continuously failed to perform well in the general elections (Moten, 2003, 401). One would expect the Islamic parties to fare well in a country that calls itself an ‘Islamic Republic’; however, this has not been the case. Why has the Pakistani public been so reluctant to vote the Islamists to the legislature? How do the Islamic parties view the relationship between religion and politics? What kind of relationships have the Islamic parties had with democratic and military governments in Pakistan? What has caused these Islamic parties to perform poorly in the elections?

This paper will attempt to answer the preceding questions by: first, talking about the origin and ideology of the biggest Islamic party in Pakistan, the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI); second, the paper will present the concept of an Islamic state as envisioned by JI; third, it will talk about the JI’s track record in elections and its relationships with military and democratic governments; fourth, it will identify reasons for JI’s failure to rise to legislative assemblies. In all, the paper will discuss the strategies implemented by JI to contest elections and their vision of an Islamic state to show how their ideology and actions have led the Pakistani public to distance themselves from Islamic parties.

Jamaat-e-Islami: Mawlana Mawdudi’s Brainchild
As British rule neared its end in India, Indian Muslims became increasingly politically and socially isolated. Muslims in the Indian subcontinent were divided along ethnic lines and had failed to have their concerns addressed at the national level (Mukherjee, 2010, 322). The Muslim theologian Mawlana Abu’l ala Mawdudi thought he could use this opportunity to create a party which would work to bring all Muslims under the banner of Islam. Thus, the Jamaat-e-Islami came in to existence in 1941 to serve the interests of the Muslim community (Kumar, 2001, 274). Mawdudi believed the Muslim culture had been diluted from centuries of influence from the Hindu culture (Nasr, 1996, 6). Muslim Punjabis could relate more with Hindu Punjabis than their co-religionists in Bengal. Similarly, Bengali Hindus and Bengali Muslims had more in common than with people from their own religions (Mukherjee, 2010, 323). Mawdudi intended to remove what he thought were impurities from the Muslim culture. He called for unity amongst the Muslims and separation from the Hindu culture (Nasr, 1996, 6). In Mawdudi’s eyes, the Jamaat-e-Islami was not just for the Indian Muslims but rather the Muslim umma (community) at large. The vision was pan-Islamist in nature and Mawdudi hoped his party to transcend the national boundaries to encompass all peoples and countries (Jackson, 2011, 79). Initially, Mawdudi had rejected the creation of an independent state for Muslims but later moved to Pakistan after its independence. He dreamed of making Pakistan an Islamic state, a model, that the rest of the Muslim states could emulate (Mukherjee, 2010, 331). To the dismay of Mawdudi, his party and its supporters, this dream would not only fall short of coming true but Jamaat-e-Islami’s transformation from a social movement to a political party would result in embarrassing election outcomes.

The Jamaat-e-Islami was to be led by an amir (leader) and consisted of the Majlis-e-shura (consultative assembly) and the members of the party. The members were required to be pious Muslims, with a morally upright character (Moten, 2003, 392). Even non-members were divided into different groups based on their closeness with Jamaat’s ideology. Those who sympathized with the goals and objectives of the Jamaat, hamdard, were held in the highest rank followed by mutahtir, those who recognized the Jamaat’s mission as a positive influence. The lowest ranked amongst the non-members was reserved for mutaarif, those who had been introduced to the objectives of the Jamaat but had not been influenced or become sympathizers (Jackson, 2011, 76). The shura or the consultative assembly of the party was responsible for policy formulation and involved a rigorous process of debating. Only once a consensus was developed among all members would the policy be adopted (Jackson, 2011, 78).

The vision of an Islamic state
Roy Jackson in his book ‘Mawlana Mawdudi and Political Islam’ writes “Mawdudi portrayed the Jamaat as the moral guardians of Pakistan: a holy community that did not dirty its hands in the mud of political wrangling” (Jackson, 2011, 71). Indeed, the JI initially limited its role in Pakistan to spreading Islam’s message and social work for the refugees who had migrated from India (Ali, 2010, 220). However, it did not take long for Mawdudi and his party’s position to change. In 1948, the JI initiated a campaign to establish an Islamic state and involved itself in the country’s politics. Nonetheless, JI sought to achieve its objective only by acting as a pressure group (Ali, 2010, 220). The aim of Jamaat-e-Islami was to bring an Islamic way of life in the country and Mawdudi wanted to prove the it to the world that Islamic laws could exist in any age (Ali, 2010, 221). It is important to note that Mawdudi believed for these Islamic laws to work, they needed to be implemented along with Islamic principles of tawil, qiyas, ijtehad, ijma and istihsan (Ali, 2010, 221). The first step towards building an Islam State, Mawdudi believed, was the declaration of the following statues by the constituent assembly of Pakistan (Ali, 2010, 223):
(1) That the sovereignty in Pakistan belongs to God almighty and the government of Pakistan shall administer the country as His agent;
(2) That the basic law of the land is the Islamic shariah which has come to us through our Prophet Mohammad;
(3) That all those existing laws, which may in conflict with shariah shall in due course be replaced or brought into conformity with the basic law and no law, which may be in any repugnant to the shariah, shall be enacted in the future;
(4) That the state, in exercising its powers, shall not be competent to transgress the limits laid down by Islam.

The Islamists believed an Islamic state was the only answer to Pakistan’s problems. They saw Islam as not just a religion rather a complete way of life. Mawdudi’s concept of the legislature was based on the “concept of shura (consultative assembly) and on the institution of ahl-al-hall wa’l –aqd (those who unbind and bind)” (Nasr, 1996, 94). He also wanted to have an Islamic constitution implemented in Pakistan. Mawdudi viewed this constitution to be a constantly evolving document based on neither a fixed sharia nor on any other existing document. According to Mawdudi there were two kinds of laws; on the one hand there were those laws that were unalterable and on the other there were laws that could be changed according to the needs and requirements of the state (Nasr, 1996, 99). These latter laws could be changed by invoking the Islamic principles of tawil (hermeneutic interpretation), qiyas (logical reasoning), ijtehad (independent inquiry into Islamic law), ijma (collective consensus) and istihsan (invoking the spirit of the sharia in novel circumstances). This Islamic state was divided into four groups consisting of male Muslims, female Muslims, Zimmis (followers of a religion recognized by Islam i.e. Christians and Jews) and non-Muslims. In this state, citizenship would be offered to Muslims all over the world (Nasr, 1996, 99).

The transformation of JI into a political party
During the partition of India, princely states were given the right to choose to side with either India or Pakistan. Kashmir, a princely state, with a majority Muslim population was expected to join Pakistan but the Hindu Maharaja of the state decided it would accede with India. Pakistan, in response, declared jihad (holy war) against the Indian army in the territory. Mawdudi, a scholar on the subject of jihad, disagreed with the Pakistani government on terming the war a jihad and went on to make his criticism public. This resulted in his arrest along with the arrest of other Jamaat leaders (Jackson, 2011, 71). The arrest of its party’s leaders forced the JI to move into the political arena indirectly taking part in the elections that were going to be held in the province of Punjab in March 1951 (Jackson, 2011, 73). Even though JI did not field its own candidates in the election, it supported those it considered as pious Muslims. As the Jamaat did not consider the Pakistani government to be Islamic, taking part in the direction albeit indirectly seemed somewhat hypocritical. JI was trying to become a part of the government it considered un-Islamic. This did not sit well with some of the members of the JI but the meeting of the shura ended up giving the party a go ahead to support pious candidates claiming it was trying to prevent the election of corrupted people to the parliament (Jackson, 2011, 72). The candidates that the Jamaat supported ended up losing. Nonetheless, JI had never been this close to the political circles prior to these elections.

Mawdudi was released from jail in 1954. In 1957, he decided that JI would contest the national elections due to take place next year. This decision was made after realizing that it was impossible to create a significant change without making Pakistan an Islamic state. To make Pakistan an Islamic state, the mandate of the people had to be won; to win this mandate, elections had to be contested. This was an important drift in JI’s perspective. From the view that by changing individuals you bring a change in the society, JI was now focused on bringing a change to the society in order to reform the individuals (Jackson, 2011, 73).

JI during democratic and military rule
Before the JI could make its debut in Pakistani politics, General Ayub Khan brought a military coup in Pakistan. Khan was seen as a secular figure who intended to keep religion separate from politics (Jackson, 2011, 74). In order to make Pakistan into a modern state, he passed the Muslim family laws in 1961. These laws abolished unmitigated polygamy, gave powers to the women by making it compulsory for husbands to seek their wives consent for a second marriage, and abolished the practice whereby a husband could divorce his wife by saying talaq (divorce) three times (Jackson, 2011, 75). Seen as very progressive and in contrast to the traditional understanding of Islam, JI strongly opposed these laws and tried to put pressure on Khan to repeal them. General Khan did not give in to JI’s demands but had to look to the leader of the party for support during the 1965 India-Pakistan war. He appealed to Mawdudi to declare the war against India a jihad in order to legitimize the Pakistani army’s actions and to raise the morale of its soldiers (Jackson, 2011, 75). At the same time, JI decided to attain more political strength to protest liberal laws like the Muslim Family Laws.

The stage finally came for JI to test its political strength in 1970. Ayub’s successor, Yahya Khan held general elections in 1970 in which the Jamaat took part (Jackson, 2011, 75). The JI had gone in with much hopes of capturing power to fulfill its dream of an Islamic state but was faced with an embarrassing election result winning only 4 out of the 300 seats in the national assembly (Kumar, 2001, 272). All Islamic parties together, the JI, Jamiat Ulama-e-Islam (JUI) and Jamiat Ulama-e-Pakistan (JUP), were only able to secure 13.95% of overall votes cast (Kumar, 2001, 272). Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s party, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), won the elections. Bhutto, who had campaigned for the elections under the banner of socialism, was criticized by the religious parties as being anti-Islam while socialism was called a ‘godless’ system that was in opposition to the teachings of Islam (Jackson, 2011, 75).

The results of the 1970 elections had dejected Mawdudi forcing him to return to his original vision of the Jamaat where it only existed as a holy community, in a domain separate from politics (Jackson, 2011, 75). Mawdudi and JI would have seen the 1970 elections as the last blow to their vision of an Islamic state had General Zia-ul-Haq not come to power. Zia-ul-Haq, after bringing down Bhutto’s government and imposing martial law in the country, offered hope to JI and Mawdudi for the establishment of an Islamic state. Mawdudi was appointed as a senior statesman during Zia’s rule and the process of Islamization of Pakistan began. Consumption and selling of alcohol was banned and strict laws on sex outside marriage were imposed. General Zia also put in place sharia benches temporarily removing the existing British law (Jackson, 2011, 76).

General Zia finally fulfilled his promise of holding general elections for the national assembly in February 1985. These elections were on a non-party basis with candidates still receiving backing from different individuals and parties. These elections saw the defeat of many of the candidates supported by General Zia and his political allay, the JI(Kumar, 2001, 272). The next elections were held in 1988. In these elections, the JI joined forces with other Islamic parties. The alliance of the religious parties, Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI), was defeated by the Pakistan People’s party with the JI only winning 8 of the 26 seats it contested (Moten, 2003, 402). The JI faced a similar result in the 1990 general elections. It ended up with just 3 per cent of the popular vote in the National Assembly elections, 4% in the North-West Frontier province, 3% and 0.8% in the provinces of Punjab and Sindh respectively (Kumar, 2001, 273). The Jamaat-e-Islami repeated its poor performances yet again in the next two elections that were held in 1993 and 1997 receiving 6.75% and 1.83% of the percentage of total votes cast respectively (Tanwir, 2002, 252).

It was only in the general elections of 2002 that the alliance of religious parties ended up with a considerable number of seats in the parliament (Tanwir, 2002, 252). The percentage of total votes cast for the religious parties increased from less than 2% to almost 11% winning them 46 seats in the national assembly. The religious alliance for the first time in Pakistan’s history formed a majority government in the province of North-West Frontier (Tanwir, 2002, 252). The increased support for the religious parties was linked to the religious alliance’s anti-American slogans that had been used to exploit people’s emotions after American forces had entered the bordering territory of Afghanistan. However, as the most recent elections of 2008 have shown, the Pakistani public has taken back the mandate from the religious alliance and elected a semi-secular party, Awami National Party (ANP), to form a government in North-West Frontier replacing the religious alliance (Goodson, 2008, 11). The religious alliance once again ended with a dismally low of 2% of total votes cast.

The beginning of the end for JI
While some of JI’s own policies resulted in its failures, there were factors beyond the party’s control that also contributed towards its poor performance in the elections. The JI started off as a platform for Mawdudi’s ideas. However, later conflicts developed on the objectives and vision of the party. JI as a political party had to make certain compromises that did not go in parallel with its ideology. For example, in 1965, JI was supporting Fatima Jinnah for her presidential campaign against Ayub Khan even though it was against Mawdudi’s views on the social role of women (Nasr, 1996, 44). Moreover, by siding with General Zia after the fall of Bhutto’s regime, JI showed its willingness to work with authoritarian regimes to achieve its objectives. This created an unfriendly relationship between the JI and other political parties.

As a pressure group, JI had done well in having the government respond to their concerns and demands but because of its hardline approach, JI as a political party failed to gain popularity at a national level. Even though Mawdudi tried to create unity under the banner of Islam, the different sects within Islam undermined the role of Islam as the uniting force. In addition, some of the off-shoot groups of JI became involved in militancy and sectarianism (Kumar, 2001, 278). Kumar (2001) states “These organizations which divided the Islamic political forces, fuelled extremism and sectarian violence, and further alienated the people from religious politics.”

With a very rigid membership criteria, the JI limited its scope of becoming a party of the masses. It could only field limited number of candidates due to the increasing requirements of closeness to religion by the members (Moten, 2003, 403). Another missing feature in the speeches of Mawdudi and JI’s strategy was a viable economic plan (Nasr, 1996, 50). The JI leaders were active in criticizing socialism but did not have a sound economic plan of their own except resorting to Islamic teachings about creating a just society. Vali Nasr (1996) writes Mawdudi “worried less about economic liberation than about preserving dress, language, customs for they were essential to safeguarding Muslim culture”. These vague and abstract principles did not seem to attract people who ended up voting for other mass parties.

To the defense of JI, it can be said that almost all democratic and military governments that have come to power in Pakistan have tried to use religion to advance their own interests. All wars were termed as jihad to legitimize the states actions and to gain support from amongst the masses (Mukherjee, 2010, 338) Also, JI could not spread its roots at the national level due to closed political structures of Pakistani politics. When Pakistan is not under martial law, its either the Pakistan People’s party or the Pakistan Muslim League that is in power. These parties contest elections by fielding candidates who are either feudal or business tycoons. Votes are forced or bought. On the other hand most of JI’s candidates come from the middle class and only rely on Islam’s message to attract voters.
The birth of ethnic parties like the Mutahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) that focus on advancing the interests of a particular ethnicity also lead to a decrease in support for religious parties (Kumar, 2001, 273). With Pakistan moving towards modernity and a larger population of the country being educated, JI has even fewer prospects of doing well due to its hardline approach towards Islam and its views on the minorities and women. According to the founder of the party, Abu’l Ala Mawdudi, “only 5 percent of the Muslim population of Pakistan were enlightened about Islam, 90 percent were illiterate with blind faith and the remaining 5 percent had been corrupted by Westernization” (Moten, 2003, 396). Perhaps, it is only the 5% enlightened Muslim population of Pakistan, as Mawdudi put it, who have been able to relate with the ideology of JI and vote for it.

Conclusion
The JI has not only failed to achieve its objective but also moved away from it while trying to make compromises to achieve political success. With a huge Muslim population, Pakistan remains a country where religion is very important. However, while people would like to see god fearing politicians, they would not like religion to be the basis for all the political decisions. For parties like the Jamaat-e-Islami, it is better to act as pressure groups, keeping a check on government’s policies by voicing concern where the policies are found to be in contrast with Islamic teachings. A democratic government will allow these voices to be heard in order to reach an understanding. The JI’s electoral misfortunes should tell us that the dream of establishing a shariah state is, if not impossible, unnecessary and unwelcome in Pakistan. The politicization of Islam and Islamization of politics will only lead to the abuse of religion for political purposes and vice versa.

Don’t start judging me by my name. Please, for a moment, forget everything you have previously heard about me and put everything you know about me aside. Give me a chance to talk a bit about myself and then feel free to form your opinions.

So I have been in the news lately and you might have noticed. It is possible one of your friends mentioned me in a conversation or you heard a politician say my name. Whatever the source of your information might be, it is likely that the content wasn’t positive. Unfortunately, I have become known for a lot of bad things. Popular belief is, I am a terrorist. I have been accused of violating human rights by many several times. Many have blamed me for not having done enough to fight extremism. Fingers have also been pointed at me for sheltering dictators.

I will understand if you look at me with disgust. I realize no one likes to associate themselves with someone with a reputation like mine. My own children have left me and I am not surprised if strangers want to distance themselves from me. However, I would appreciate if you give me some of your time today to hear my story. To save your time, I promise to keep it simple and short.

Let’s start with where the problem started. I became independent in 1947. I had grown big enough to live by myself but the struggle to become free wasn’t easy at all. There were many bumps along the road and many unexpected turns that I was forced to take. My children toiled with me for independence as all of us realized its worth. In the process, a lot was lost but there was a lot more to be gained that kept us moving forward until one day we became free. However, not too long after we became independent, something very unfortunate happened. The vision of our independence was blurred.

People started to attribute different reasons for our independence. It wasn’t so shocking to see outsiders attribute false claims but my own children had started to give dangerous colors to the partition. Soon, I was given a name by my children that became my identity. Even though I loved my middle name, ‘Republic’ and my last name, ‘Pakistan’, I always felt uncomfortable with my first name, ‘Islamic’.

I never wanted a faith to be associated with me. To me all my children were equal irrespective of what their personal belief was. I was aware that my children spoke various languages, had different faiths and followed different traditions. I knew differences amongst my children existed but I had hoped, perhaps naively, that they would accept each other as there was a fundamental bond between them. All of them shared the same mother.

As time passed, I found out my children had started to betray me and my vision for independence. They had started bringing out differences and imposing their views on the others. My vision of a pluralistic society where everyone lived peacefully together was put in the background. I found out soon that my own life’s story had been distorted. It had been tailored for personal interests. I had spoken of the protection of all religions, but as I was revealed, some of my children had associated my views to a particular religion. These children also seemed to have taken the right to correct others in their own hands. It became more obvious as some of my children started to be mistreated. They were denied the right to talk about their faith in public and even stopped from calling their places of worship by the names they wanted to.

This mistreated group of children included a great scholar as well. His name was Abdus Salam. Abdus Salam was a genius. He took my name to countries and places, I was unfamiliar with. Because of him people happened to want to know about me. They started to praise me for producing such a great scholar. I was so proud of him for setting an example for other children to follow. Little did I know that his success wasn’t liked by all. Religion was brought in to undermine his contributions and so his achievements were submerged by his own siblings.

Another thing I couldn’t come to terms with was that while some of my children were spending their money on luxurious items and vacations, many were begging for food. No one was helping each other out. Those who had the money had shut their curtains and were enjoying their meals in their air-conditioned rooms while others stood in the heat waiting to be fed. Those who had the education had it for themselves, no one cared to cater to the illiterate. Similarly, I noticed that some of my children had started using religion to control others. There were a few attempts by those with the guns to rule through fear too.

Mosques, which were supposed to unite, started creating divides. So much so that there were different mosques built for different groups. One had to prove their membership of a certain group to be allowed into the mosque. The house of God became the property of individuals and some children took the duties of God in their own hands. The sight of equality eventually vanished and tolerance started to disappear. The bonds began to fade away and differences started to fill in the vacuum. My beautiful daughters were forced into marriages and told they were somehow less important to the society than men. The society shaped their identity in such a way that people looked down upon them.

The dream of independence came true but only as a nightmare. My dreams had been shattered by my own family. I was betrayed by my very own children. This gave an opportunity to my neighbors to exploit my weak position. Some came forward to show concern only for personal interests. Some shunned me completely. Yet others kept telling me I had to do more to be accepted.

Only if I could tell the world, I didn’t want to be what I am today. This is not why I was born. This is not what I wanted to be known for. Only if I could tell the world, I wanted to be known for producing squash champions like Jehangir and Jansher, for producing great scientists like Abdus Salam, for respecting all religions, for fostering democracy, for creating equality, for removing gender bias. Only if I could tell the world, all these things are as dear to me as they are to you. Only if I could say it to the world, all my children are being blamed for the faults of a few. Only if I could show the world, my children are nice people. They just need to be guided through education and not punished with drones. If you still mock my condition, at least don’t doubt my intentions any more.

I hope I haven’t taken much of your time today. I hope I made sense. It was very hard to talk against my own children. I had to hold my emotions back while saying all of this. I am glad though that I took it out today. I realize it’s only the mother’s blind love which ruins its children. I have already been blamed for so many things. This one more accusation wouldn’t have made a difference but I care for my children and I did this with only their good in mind. May be somewhere, one of my children has heard me, and seen him/herself in my true image.

Just remember, it’s never too late. We only go down to come back up even stronger. Remember, it’s your responsibility to help your brothers and sisters who are in need. In need of education, of food, of justice. You don’t have to be scared of them being dependent on you. They just need a chance, a push, an oppurtunity. Remember, religion is your personal relationship with God. Don’t let it come in between your interactions with anyone. Remember, remember the sacrifices we made for independence. Let’s value them and work towards reaching our true potential. Remember, I will always have hope in you. You are the only thing I have.

Pakistan played India in a Semi-Final of a cricket World Cup a couple of days ago and lost for the 5th consecutive time. I expected some pissed off fans. I anticipated emotional crowds desperately waiting at the airport to hurl all sorts of things at their cricket team. I pictured Pakistanis (including myself) venting out their anger at people around them. I looked forward to the Pakistani media channels and news anchors bashing the cricket team. I also imagined Pakistani cricket pundits putting all sorts of accusation on the team. Yet time has passed on rather merrily and I haven’t witnessed any of this happening. You ask, ‘how is it possible?’ Well, this time there was a victory in our defeat.

This victory in a defeat was a victory because Pakistan team surpassed many expectations and reached so far. It was a victory of unity. It was also a victory of passion. It was a victory of all the prayers for which so many hands had been raised in synchronization. It was a victory of Pakistan-India friendship. It was a victory of sportsmanship but most importantly it was a victory for Pakistan!

For the first time in my life, I saw Pakistanis from all walks of life put their backgrounds aside- be it religion, sect, ethnicity, social standing – united in support of their cricket team. For the first time, I could tell neither the difference between the smile of a roadside seller and a wealthy businessman nor could I distinguish the reasons for their tears shed. For the first time, I couldn’t tell apart one Pakistani from another. All of them were united for one cause. All of them shared the same dream. All of them wished for the same result.

For the first time, I saw a Pakistani captain apologize to his nation when he didn’t have to. For the first time I saw the Pakistani team warmly congratulate their counterparts. For the first time, I saw a Pakistani leader take the responsibility. For the first time I saw such Jazba in my people. For the first time, I saw my team try so hard. When Michael Montaigne said “There are some defeats more triumphant than victories”, he couldn’t have thought of a better occasion to say it than this.

In the past week, my news feed on facebook has been full of people posting videos, pictures and songs about Pakistan. Some have put the Pakistani flag as their profile picture; others have put pictures of their favorite players up. As the India Pakistan game approaches, fans on both sides of the border are getting ready to watch what is going to be a great game of cricket and a strong contest. In fact Pakistanis all over the world are there in spirit to support their team. They are sending out strong messages to the Indian team, constantly talking about Pakistan and their team’s potential. There have been tweets talking about the excitement and the emotion surrounding the game. People are seen in green shirts, proud of their country.

Once this game is over, once the emotions fade away, once people have cooled down and the profile pictures and the statuses are back to what they were before. Once the cricket fever goes away, will we Pakistanis give up on Pakistan? Will we stop talking about our country? Will we stop supporting it? Are we going to stop putting pictures of our flags up? Are we going to disown Pakistan?

It seems like we only want good things. When our team is doing well, we start owning our country, proudly calling ourselves Pakistanis and wearing our colors in the public. However, when there are bomb blasts, when there is unemployment, when there is corruption, when there is illiteracy, when there is the violation of human rights, we seem to disown Pakistan. We stay quiet about our nationality sometimes even ashamed of our origin.

Only in good times we stand with our country. In all the bad times we forget who we are, where we come from and what we can do. With the given situation in Pakistan, I have come across many Pakistanis who have told me they have no hope from the country. Some have given up hope and said they know things will never change back home. I have always disagreed. In a nation of 170 million people, I see unlimited potential. I see hope, I see talented painters, architects, artists, engineers, doctors, cricketers, scientists and social activists. I see all of this in the common Pakistani. I see this in more than 99% of Pakistanis who want to live normal lives, who go to work every day, who want their children to attend good schools, who have nothing to do with terrorism.

To change things in our country we have to start taking ownership. As Pakistanis all of us have to own Pakistan and play our roles as responsible citizens. By owning Pakistan I mean we should think of the country as our own property and not as someone else’s land. Like we wouldn’t leave a close relative in a bad time, similarly our country can not be left like that in bad times. We have to be there for it. We have to change this country. We have to change all the bad things happening in it. We are the ones to give it hope not to give up hope on it.

What Shia, what Sunni, what Pathan, what Mohajir, what Sindhi, what Balochi, what Punjabi, what Siraiki, if all of us can unite to support our cricket team, why can’t we unite to save our country. These differences that exist amongst us, these ethnicities and sects which create a wall between us, which divide us, are nothing but artificial barriers. Our team has players from all parts of Pakistan from all the different sects and all the different ethnicities. Our team has shown us what we can achieve when we unite. Our team has shown us victory is possible. The team management might be inefficient, our players might have been banned for spot-fixing and other charges, but the team has been able to come out all of it stronger than before.

Pakistan has made into the semi-finals of 2011 World Cup, a place hardly a few expected them to reach before this world cup started. Against all odds, we beat the team which had won the previous three world cups. On Wednesday we will play India, our biggest enemy in the cricketing world. We might lose, we might win but irrespective of the result of the game, we will have learned some useful lessons. Irrespective of the result, we will have seen that there is hope, there is unity, and there is the passion and the spirit to succeed, to come out of darkness and shine. We will have seen that with good leadership, things can change, things will change. Even when the world cup is over, I want to see people putting up pictures of the flag, wearing their colors and united against all the forces which seem to divide us. I want them to be proud of their country as proud as they are on their team’s success.

In the end, I would like to quote John F Kennedy who said in his presidential address in 1960, ‘ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country’. Perhaps, it’s time for us to start doing that.

Pakistan does not need a military take over. Neither does it need a sharia system nor westernization. All it needs is a nation. It has been over 60 years that this country was born. In these 60 years, the people of Pakistan have failed to stand as one. Ethnic and sectarian divisions have torn apart the country. Efforts have been made all along to unite the people under the banner of Islam. We were asked to believe in ‘Pakistan ka matlab kia? La Ilaha Il Allah’. Unfortunately this phrase did not play the magic it was expected to play rather it caused certain dominant sects to impose their interpretation of Islam on the smaller sects. These particular sects also seem to have held the right to who can be called a Muslim and who cannot. I believe Pakistan desperately needs nation-building followed by democracy to be rescued from where it stands or it can lead to further disaster.

In 1971 East Pakistan became Bangladesh. It was not because its residents were non-Muslims. We lost East Pakistan due to our own faults. We couldn’t unite as one nation. We tried to impose a language on their people which they couldn’t relate to. We tried to benefit from their resources and we denied them political freedom. As a result they sided with the “hindu” enemy and became independent. Even Islam in this case could not act as the uniting force. Now we are left with West Pakistan. Today West Pakistan is divided between Mohajirs and Pathans. Punjabis and Balochis. The army and the mullahs. The landlords and the elites. The Shias and the Sunnis. The Mian sahiban and the Bhuttos. Each is trying to impose its views on the other and they are all pulling Pakistan towards themselves. In doing so they are tearing apart the country.

We need to realize that Pakistan is not for one particular ethnicity, sect, class, or a political party. Pakistan is for all of us. We need to accept each other as we are. Pakistan is a state with great diversity in terms of ethnicity. Instead of imposing certain customs and traditions on to everyone we need to cherish our diversity. We have to look at each other not as a Pathan, Mohajir, Balochi or a Punjabi but as a fellow Pakistani. We need to understand that our fellow Pakistani has the same right to Pakistan as we do. We have in front of us so many examples where Pakistanis forgot their differences and stood as one. During the wars we fought, Pakistan stood united. During the earthquake in 2005, Pakistan stood united. During the restoration of the chief justice, Pakistan stood united. And every time we stood united, we achieved what we wanted.

Today we have to stand united to defeat the forces of extremism and sectarianism. The spiritual leaders of the different sects have to set examples for their followers by preaching tolerance. The politicians have to set examples for their voters by practicing equality. The parents have to set examples for their children by removing prejudices. The teachers have to set examples for their students by teaching unity. We have to set examples for the generations to come to find an identity we haven’t been able to find yet. While it can not be denied that Pakistan was formed for the Muslims of the subcontinent as a state where they were allowed to practice their religion freely, we also cannot forgot the fact that the Quaid of the nation was a secular person by all means. Jinnah was an Ismaeli by birth and converted to twelver Shiism later in his life. He was never a religious person and mostly communicated in English. However, he managed to unite a great percentage of the Muslim population of subcontinent under his leadership for the struggle for a separate homeland. We have to stop fighting over our differences. We fought for this nation together, we must save it together!

It shocks me to see the things Muslims do in the name of Islam. We have stopped looking inside ourselves and only focused on correcting others. Asiya Bibi, a Christian woman who has been sentenced to death after being accused of blasphemy in Pakistan is a victim of this outlook. Blasphemy laws were introduced by General Zia in an attempt to Islamicize the state. According to these laws, a person who passes on derogatory remarks for the Prophet or desecrates the Quran is to be put to death or imprisoned for life. There have been many occasions where these laws have been used and abused for political purposes and personal rivalries. The case of Asiya Bibi is no different. However, regardless of Asiya Bibi’s innocence, these laws don’t fall in line with the lessons we learn from the life of our Holy Prophet. The Prophet, in whose name we carry out these sentences, had avoided these proceedings.

Let me narrate to you an incident from the Prophet’s life. As the story goes, the Prophet travelled to the valley of Tai’f to invite its people to Islam. At the Prophet’s arrival, he was not only mistreated by the locals but children were made to run after him throwing stones at him. The Prophet was injured so badly that his shoes were filled with blood. Allah was displeased by the behavior of the people of Tai’f and sent the messenger Gibrael to tell the Prophet that if he wanted, Allah would destroy the whole valley bringing down its people under the mountains. The Prophet responded with asking Allah for forgiveness for the people and praying for their future generations to be shown the right path.

Imagine now, how the Prophet would have responded to the use of derogatory remarks for him. He would have forgiven the person and prayed for him to be shown the right path! Why then do we acting on the Prophet’s behalf sentence these people for life imprisonment or put them to death. The Prophet surely wouldn’t have wanted this. He would be displeased not with the people who ridicule him but rather people who follow him but misinterpret his teachings.

The minorities have been the ones to suffer most by these laws. These laws have bred intolerance amongst the general public and this intolerance is what causes such incidents in the first place. Let’s learn the lessons of compassion and forgiveness from the Prophet’s life and raise our voice against these cruel laws. Let’s stand up with Asiya Bibi and fight for her release. Most importantly, let’s ask for these laws to be repealed to avoid the mistreatment of minorities in our country in the future.

I took this picture while crossing the Pakistan-India border by foot. The only thing which separated the two countries was a barbed wire in between. People on both sides eat the same food, dress the same way, listen to the same kind of music, pray to the same God, talk the same language, watch the same movies, crack the same jokes, and most importantly play good cricket. Yet these two countries have fought 2 major wars and other small scale wars since their independence. The governments of both the countries have ignored poverty and and unemployment inside them and taken up a never ending arms race. They spend billions of dollars in acquiring weapons which will never be used. The people on both sides want peace. For this the people on both sides need to interact with each other to realize how similar they are. The barbed wire has been put there to separate us and not let us find out the truth about our neighbors. The road to peace is still there and gives us hope for the future.